Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Derendal v. Griffith, 104 P.3d 147.

95 citing documents.

Efg v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Efg v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
applies to enforcement actions under the Act.
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Samuel Fuentes v. Tucson City Court Hon. Jay Cranshaw 541 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Samuel Fuentes v. Tucson City Court Hon. Jay Cranshaw 541 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
This consequence, he argued, triggered a
Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
¶ 33 (2005); see also Knick v. Twp.
State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
Indeed, this Court has “consistently held that the phrase ‘shall remain inviolate’ preserves the right to jury trial as it existed at the time Arizona adopted its constitution.” ¶ 9 (2005) ( ¶ 4 (2000); Bowden, 26 Ariz. at 488).
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
E. H. v. Hon. slayton/state 468 P.3d 1209 Ariz. 2020
E. H. v. Hon. slayton/state 468 P.3d 1209 Ariz. 2020
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Justice Court, ¶ 21 (App. 2016); ¶¶ 21-22 (2005) (adopting rebuttable presumption against jury trial for misdemeanors for which the maximum penalty is less than six months incarceration).
State of Arizona v. Oscar Pena Trujillo 462 P.3d 550 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Oscar Pena Trujillo 462 P.3d 550 Ariz. 2020
2018) (rejecting the government’s argument that because “removal” was a “civil sanction,” it “should not be considered in a Blanton analysis”); –26 ¶ 40 & n.9 (2005) (considering civil consequence of loss of a driver’s license in determining whether underlying offense was serious); ¶ 13 n.5 (App. 2008) (stating that a court must consider civil administrative consequences accompanying a criminal conviction, such as
State v. Cepeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cepeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
This case does not present the question of whether a defendant facing a misdemeanor charge is entitled to a jury trial, where the Arizona Supreme Court repeatedly has “reason[ed] that the Arizona Constitution requires greater protection of the right to trial by jury than does the federal constitution.” ¶ 6 (2005) (citing cases).
State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
¶ 8 (quoting Derendal v. Griffith , , ¶ 13, , 151 (2005) ).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hon kalauli/kroll 414 P.3d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hon kalauli/kroll 414 P.3d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
DISCUSSION ¶6 Article 2, Section 23, of the Arizona Constitution provides that “[t]he right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.”1 ¶ 9 (2005), our supreme court explained that this provision preserves the right to jury trial as it existed at the time Arizona adopted its constitution.
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
1 Derendal v. Griffith , , ¶ 13, , 151 (2005) ; see U.S. Const. amend.
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
State v. Winegardner 397 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Winegardner 397 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
300 n.3, , 1196 n.3 (1989), , ¶ 23 & n.8, , 163-64 & n.8 (2006).
State v. Galvan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Galvan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 13-707(A)(1) (setting the maximum sentence for a class 1 misdemeanor at six months’ imprisonment); ¶ 21 (2005) (a misdemeanor punishable by no more than six months’ incarceration is presumed to be a petty offense that falls outside the jury requirement).
Peter J. Kaniowsky v. the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court The Hon. Maria L. Felix 371 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Peter J. Kaniowsky v. the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court The Hon. Maria L. Felix 371 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State ex rel. Darwin v. Arnett 330 P.3d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State ex rel. Darwin v. Arnett 330 P.3d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶43 , ( ¶8 , ).
Mack v. Hon. dellas/phoenix 326 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mack v. Hon. dellas/phoenix 326 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
2 MACK v. DELLAS/PHOENIX Opinion of the Court constitutional right to a trial by jury if “a statutory offense has a common law antecedent that guaranteed a right to trial by jury at the time of Arizona statehood.” ¶ 36, (citing Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23).
Bosworth v. Hon. anagnost/az 323 P.3d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Bosworth v. Hon. anagnost/az 323 P.3d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶¶ 36-37, see also Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24.
Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Caruthers v. Underhill 326 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Compare, , (applying remedial test), -20 , ¶ ¶ 10-12, -51 (2005) (applying substantive test).
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(clauses in Arizona Constitution usually interpreted in conformity with similar clauses of United States Constitution); (in context of right to jury trial, article II, § 24 is Arizona’s analog to Sixth Amendment of United States Constitution and thus construed consistently).